Division within the county board became a key issue as commissioners discussed presenting a Freeborn County courthouse reconstruction plan to the public Thursday.

Friday, July 30, 1999

Division within the county board became a key issue as commissioners discussed presenting a Freeborn County courthouse reconstruction plan to the public Thursday.

&uot;The hardest part about this is we can’t bring any solid support among the commissioners,&uot; Commissioner Bob Berthelsen said, noting the board split 3-2 to move a plan forward. He added that some commissioners voting for the selected plan may prefer a different alternative.

&uot;We have to move somewhere,&uot; he said, pointing out that public meetings could result in more ideas for the board.

But, County Administrator Gene Smith said he doesn’t think the division is as wide as Berthelsen states.

&uot;I think they are closer together than they think they are,&uot; Smith told Jack Boarman, the project’s architect.

Smith said at least four commissioners agree there is a need for added change at the courthouse’s current site and all five see a need for upgrades.

How those changes will develop is what is being debated.

Commissioner Brian Jordahl said that’s why the public needs to be brought in to discuss the plan proposed. He said commissioners will know more after they inform residents and discuss the issue.

He said the particular design chosen will help answer one question commissioners have spent a lot of time debating.

&uot;What this scheme represents is – Do you want to save the 1888 building?&uot; he said.

The plan being moved forward calls for the removal of the 1954 building at the courthouse’s north side, but keeps the oldest portion and restores its tower and spires.

Jordahl said public meetings will indicate whether or not taxpayers want the county to pay for remodeling the older building.

During Thursday’s discussion, Boarman said he agreed with Smith and noted the commissioners present – Berthelsen, Jordahl and Keith Porter – seemed to have some similar ideas and concerns.

&uot;I think there is some strong common ground here, but there are still questions,&uot; he said.

To help define where the commissioners agree and disagree, Boarman proposed meeting with each individually and preparing a report. He said that will also help determine the main goals of the board.

While doing that, he said his staff will also work on preparing information for the presentation. While current plans call for public meetings, Boarman said newsletters, phone interviews or other presentations could be used to present information and gather public comment.

He said the more information presented and public comment gathered, the better the chances are for finding a reconstruction plan that has a strong consensus.

&uot;The whole issue of ignoring the public on this is not the right move to choose,&uot; he said, noting it would be possible for the county to start construction without public approval.

Instead, he said it’s important to work at predicting what taxpayers will want to see when discussing the plan. Some items mentioned included drawings or models of what the courthouse would look like and how much it would cost.

While $8.5 million estimates have been given, Boarman said it’s time to take a closer look at estimated costs.

The commissioners agreed the added information will be needed when facing the public.

&uot;We want to be prepared so we do the best job possible,&uot; said Berthelsen.

Creating a new schematic for the plans and a cost estimate is expected to four to six weeks and cost the county $8,000 to $9,000. Any aid with public presentations could cost more.

The county has already paid $13,000 for architectural help on the project.